Citation Nr: 20002255 Decision Date: 01/10/20 Archive Date: 01/09/20 DOCKET NO. 16-19 410A DATE: January 10, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability of the toes is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The most competent and probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has bilateral foot disability that is etiologically related to an in-service injury or event. 2. The most competent and probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a skin disability of the toes that is etiologically related to an in-service injury or event. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a skin disability of the toes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1973 to June 1976. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. In August 2019, the Board held a hearing via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Unfortunately, the audio recording is inaudible, so there is no transcript of the hearing. In October 2019, VA sent a letter to the Veteran asking whether he wanted to have another Board hearing. In a correspondence dated and received in November 2019, the Veteran stated that he did not wish to appear at another Board hearing and requested that the case be considered on the evidence of record. Therefore, the Board will adjudicate the claim based on the evidence of record. Service Connection Legal Criteria Generally, service connection may be established for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish direct-incurrence service connection for a disability, the Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability of the toes The Board finds competent evidence of bilateral foot and skin disabilities of the toes. The Veteran’s VA treatment records show that the Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral pes cavus with pronation, or hammer toes, and bilateral onychomycosis. Thus, the Board finds that the first element of service connection, the existence of present disabilities, has been met. However, the Veteran’s entrance and exit examinations are silent for reports of related conditions, and service treatment records (STRs) spanning the entirety of the Veteran’s service note no diagnoses or treatment of bilateral foot disability or skin disability of the toes. The record shows that the Veteran first sought pertinent treatment in approximately 2010, over three decades following his discharge from service. While the length of time between service and diagnosis of a disability is not dispositive, it is for consideration, and weighs against the current claims. Thus, the Board does not find competent evidence of an in-service event sufficient to warrant a VA examination at this time, or upon which to grant the claims. See also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The Veteran’s filing of the claims for service connection for the disabilities at issue constitutes his assertion that the disabilities at issue are etiologically due to service. However, the Veteran has not cited a specific in-service event related to either disability at issue. Further, the Veteran has not been shown to have the requisite medical knowledge to be deemed competent to provide an opinion as to the etiology of either disability at issue. Such is a complex matter that requires medical knowledge or expertise. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application, and the claims must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Susan Leary, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.